Bitrix24 MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('получение информации' - getting information), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens with invalid IDs), rate limits, or response format. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, with no wasted words. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, but given its brevity, it's well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., deal details, status), error scenarios, or how it fits with siblings like 'list_deals'. For a read operation with no structured support, more context on behavior and output is needed to be fully helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions the parameter 'ID' (implied as 'deal_id'), but with 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines 'deal_id' as an integer without context. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what constitutes a valid ID, format constraints, or examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but the lack of detail keeps it at a minimal viable level.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Получение информации о сделке по ID' (Getting information about a deal by ID) states a clear verb ('получение' - getting) and resource ('сделка' - deal), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_deals' (which lists multiple deals) by specifying retrieval by ID, but doesn't clarify what distinguishes it from 'update_deal_stage' in terms of read vs write operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid deal ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_deals' for bulk retrieval or 'update_deal_stage' for modifications. Usage is implied by the phrase 'по ID' (by ID), but no explicit context or decision criteria are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.